Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Pierre,
That is certainly true:
> The proposer of a starter document gives away stuff. If we
> take them, we manage them into a SUO, they do whatever they want with their own
> product development. We are speaking about contributions nothing else.
>
> Look, this seems to me the basic way this group should function as an
> independent entity with an independent output.
That is what motion #2 proposes.
> If people are so worried about
> being enslaved to the point that they give their benediction to any proposal
> and play consensus builders for the sake of it, then I guess this effort should
> indeed be shut down. It is also possible to start a Standard Ontology
> Registry...
I said that I would vote for Adam's motion #1 because I
would prefer to have him and his group continue to do
their work within the SUO umbrella. To keep my promise,
I voted yes on both motions.
But I certainly agree with you that motion #1 is
redundant and unnecessary. If motion #2 passes, it is
irrelevant whether motion #1 passes or fails.
As for consensus building, you have to realize that people
frequently make decisions for emotional reasons, and their
stated reasons are usually rationalizations. As Bismarck said,
"Every man has two reasons -- a good one, and the real one.
That is why even conferences on scientific subjects have a
considerable amount of wining and dining that is designed to
make people feel good. It is intended to keep the animals
together long enough for them to get some real work done.
Unfortunately, we can't have wining and dining on the Internet.
But politics can be carried out in any medium. Without it,
the group falls apart, and nothing gets done.
I believe that the SUO Working Group is capable of doing
something useful. Therefore, I am willing to spend some time
on politics in order to make people feel good. If it fails,
the group falls apart, and we spend our time elsewhere.
John